Field
This application relates to vehicle cleaning devices, specifically to such devices that clean the undercarriage of vehicles.
Prior Art
Vehicles accumulate corrosive materials on their undercarriages such as but not limited to dirt, road salt, and chemicals. If not removed, these materials, over time, will erode parts of the vehicle resulting in damage and costly repairs to the consumer. Cleaning the undercarriage of a vehicle has been shown to stop the negative effects of such materials and save the consumer costly repairs in the future.
Having a vehicle washed professionally can be a costly endeavor, especially on a consistent basis. Professional vehicle washes will charge extra to wash the undercarriage of the vehicle, allowing only one pass through the undercarriage cleaning section each wash, which may not clean the affected areas well enough. Many professional vehicle washes do not offer an undercarriage vehicle wash. For these reasons many consumers wash their own vehicles at home.
A number of such devices for cleaning the undercarriage of a vehicle at home have been developed and patents granted. Many of these prior-art devices have been developed to rival the cleaning methods of a professional vehicle wash. These devices typically rely upon a conventional liquid source such as a garden hose type outlet via the home of a consumer.
These devices are typically larger in size and have the home-consumer exerting their own physical energy to use the device. Most of the devices have the consumer holding a spray handle at one end of the device and physically moving and or rolling the device back and forth to clean the undercarriage of the vehicle. Many of the devices also require the use of a pressure washer.
Among the examples of such devices are those of U.S. Pat. No. 6,045,064 issued on Apr. 4, 2000 to Abraham; U.S. Pat. No. 6,247,658 issued on Jun. 19, 2001 to Bakas; U.S. Pat. No. 5,707,014 issued on Jan. 13, 1998 to Chan, et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,079,640 issued on Jun. 27, 2000 to Merritts; U.S. Pat. No. 4,984,746 issued on Jan. 15, 1991 to Joyal; U.S. Pat. No. 7,208,051 issued on Apr. 24, 2007 to Zinski, et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,779,744 issued on Aug. 24, 2004 to Marine, et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,653,392 issued on Aug. 5, 1997 to Wells.
The aforementioned patents of Bakas, Chan, Joyal, and Zinski all use certain wheels to maneuver the device along the undercarriage of the vehicle. This can cause issues because the wheels can be obstructed by many different objects, and the surface itself, hindering the process of cleaning the vehicle. The consumer will expend excess time and energy trying to maneuver around the various obstacles.
In the patents of Zinski, Joyal, Bakas, and Abraham the device employs a handle with a squeeze style trigger for the operator to use. This trigger must be squeezed by the hand of the operator to release liquid into the device. This is another example of an expenditure of energy on the part of the operator which will add to the tediousness of using the device to wash the undercarriage of a vehicle. The patents of Abraham and Merritts require the operator to hold the full weight of the device while operating it. This again will have the operator expend more energy and cause possible muscular issues to the user while using the device.
The patents of Bakas, Chan, Joyal, Zinski, Merrits, and Abraham require the user to use specific motions and energy to operate their devices, thereby limiting the use of these devices by people with certain handicaps and limited mobility.
With the patents of Bakas, Chan, Joyal, Zinski, and Marine the materials needed to produce each device readily exceed what is needed to clean the undercarriage of a vehicle. This is especially prevalent with the devices of Joyal, Zinski, and Marine. Marines' device does have the added benefit of not having the consumer spend their energy using it but it is very bulky and therefore harder to transport if need be. Also, the entire frame is not needed to clean the entire undercarriage of a vehicle and adds unnecessary costs to the manufacturing of the device. The device of Joyal has a rounded t-shaped lower body which can also be bulky to transport and cost more to produce with the material used. Also, with the devices of Bakas, Chan, Joyal, and Zinski the material needed for the different lengths of tubing, the housing for the sprayers, the squeeze triggers (except for Chan), etc. add to the cost of the device.
Furthermore, with the patents of Bakas, Zinski, and Wells the devices may and/or will use a high pressurized stream of liquid via some type of pump or pressure washer to clean the undercarriage of a vehicle. This is not only unnecessary but may damage or destroy the protective undercoating that is applied to vehicles. This will void any positive effects the device may have on the vehicle by removing dirt, road salt, etc., from the undercarriage.